[oajfp] two new

From: "Gregory DeClue Ph. D. ABPP" <gregdeclue@xxxxxx>

To: OAJFP@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:18:56 -0400

Click "CURRENT ISSUE" or "VOLUME 2: 2010" at
http://www.forensicpsychologyunbound.ws/
Assessing Parental Risk in Parenting Plan (Child Custody)
Phillip H. Witt, Associates in Psychological Services, P.A., Somerville, NJ
Email: phwitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Corresponding author)
Hannah L. Merdian, Psychology Department, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New
Zealand
Mary Connell, Independent Practice, Fort Worth, TX
Douglas P. Boer, Psychology Department, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New
Zealand
Abstract: One type of claim in parenting assessment (child custody)[1] cases is
that one parent, typically the father, is alleged to be engaging in improper or
compulsive sexual behavior via the Internet. The sexual behavior at issue can
range from frequent sexually explicit chats with other adults to compulsive
viewing of adult pornography. In more extreme cases, the problematic behavior
may involve viewing child pornography, and in some cases, the parent faces
actual criminal charges in this regard. The present article reviews the
current scientific knowledge base for evaluation of risk in such parenting
evaluation cases and provides some guidelines and recommendations for an
evaluator in the assessment process.
[1] The term “parenting-plan evaluation” or “parenting evaluation” is used
instead of “custody evaluation” to reflect the current focus, in all states, on
legal decision-making in contested parenting cases that seeks to maximize the
capacities of each parent to contribute positively to meeting the child’s
needs. “Custody” and “visitation” may have come to imply a “winner take all”
notion that is no longer an accurate reflection of the understanding of what
is in children’s best interests.
Grisso, T. (2010). Guidance for improving forensic reports: A review of common
errors. Open Access Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2, 102-115.
Abstract: This study employed a national sample of forensic reports that had
been critiqued by a panel of advanced forensic mental-health practitioners
serving as reviewers for the American Board of Forensic Psychology. The study
describes all of the discrete types of faults that reviewers encountered in the
reports, and then converts them to prescriptive statements to guide forensic
report writing. The study also identifies the most frequent report-writing
problems in this sample. The results were not intended to describe the quality
of forensic reports in the U.S., but rather to offer guidance for improving the
quality of forensic reports.